Loudness Wars & Taxi Screeners

[andreh]

The unfortunate and uninformed trend of bands and record labels to master their CD's at increasingly higher levels over the past several years has yielded a standard that most anyone with a sense of dynamic aesthetics would consider sub-standard.Be that as it may, the standard exists. My question is, does the overall loudness of a track play at all into Taxi's screening process? Do we have to squash all the dynamics out of our pop tunes (or worse yet, our orchestral pieces) to be considered for a forward?Andre

[grubb]

Thats a good question, especially considering "Broadcast Quality"

[matto]

Quote:The unfortunate and uninformed trend of bands and record labels to master their CD's at increasingly higher levels over the past several years has yielded a standard that most anyone with a sense of dynamic aesthetics would consider sub-standard.Be that as it may, the standard exists. My question is, does the overall loudness of a track play at all into Taxi's screening process? Do we have to squash all the dynamics out of our pop tunes (or worse yet, our orchestral pieces) to be considered for a forward?AndreSimple answer: No.

[andreh]

That's the answer I wanted to hear!

[davewalton]

I take the "loudness" thing into consideration based on the style of music. I see that as having become part of the overall sound of certain genres and I try to do my "mastering" appropriately. Orchestral related stuff isn't usually mastered red hot but all harder-edged electronica is. In short, I try to do what's appropriate for the genre and to try to give them what they expect.It's never been mentioned in a critique for which I didn't get a forward and there have been plenty of those.

[ernstinen]

Quote:Orchestral related stuff isn't usually mastered red hot but all harder-edged electronica is. In short, I try to do what's appropriate for the genre and to try to give them what they expect.Yea, Dave is correct (as usual!). I'm writing mainly orchestral stuff, and dynamics are the key there.But Rock and Electronic, which I also compose, are compressed more.I don't go for the "loudest is best" theory, though.Ern

[gschmitt]

i'm a bit late here, but no one hit this point, so i feel obligated: those guys are correct in saying no, but that doesn't mean that when they place your tunes in rotation for radio or synch them for movies/ads/etc. they don't get SUPER-compressed anyway. there's a whole mastering process that a tune goes thru when it hits post-prod to be synched to film anyway, so you don't have to worry. i'd almost be willing to bet that if you DON'T compress too fully, the synch engineer might like you better b/c you give him more room to tailor the sound than if it's completely at level. (kinda makes sense, right?) alot of people don't know that "broadcast quality" is something that mastering doesn't necessarily achieve all the time. mastering is usually done with CD quality in mind; not radio play quality. once you master, you get to radio and they re-compress all over again. by the time your tune is played on the waves, it's squashed! haven't you ever noticed on a classic rock album (take led zep's "stairway," for example), the low parts are harder to hear in your car/stereo/whatever when you're playing an old tape, but the radio version (i'm talking back in the day, here) was EASIER to make out? this would be why. okay....short answer: NO!